Bangkok 'Popcorn gunman' denies weapons charges

[StealthEnergiser]

I thank him for defending Mr Suthep and his group when the police would do absolutely nothing and now we all know how much the Thaksin supporters wanted to create havoc and acts of terrorism .

He should be given an award for bravery for helping to save lives.

You thank him for shooting and paralysing an unarmed grandfather. Weird morality you have.

for a start that has not been proven yet , and secondly he was trying to save lives the exact opposite to what your red shirt buddies were doing.

[khunken]

Yes, obvious falsehood.

Do you know, for a fact, that the gunman went to Laksi with the objective of shooting at voters specifically? Not at the Red Shirts that assembled to confront the PDRC, voters just trying to cast their vote.

Do keep in mind that there were no other gunman waiting for voters anywhere else, only where a group of Red Shirts moved in with the express intention of facing off with the PDRC (something that had previously ended up in anti-PTP protesters being killed)

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

Were all the voters 'red' supporters ? i understood that voters of other persuasions also went to the polls, albeit to spoil their votes.

Not all the voters were Red, but all the Reds were voters.

Contradicting yourself I see:

"assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same

Not all the voters were Red, but all the Reds were voters.

You are using totally false logic as well. Yes, the protestors were trying to prevent voting (by who, nobody knows except, apparently you) and the red shirt armed wing (Ko Tee and his murderous gang) were there, protected by the police, shooting at protestors. The Popcorn gunman went there to confront the armed reds and protect the protestors.

Very similar to the PDRC having to employ guards, some armed, in an effort to protect the main body of protestors from the killers. Why? Because the CAPO led police failed in every department: viz protecting unarmed people from killers and making no effort to arrest the perpetrators.

Yes, the protestors were wrong to try and disrupt voting but that is a job for the police, not an armed militia. BTW that militia killed a PDRC leader afterwards on Bangna Trad road.

[See the bears]

Do you know for a fact that he didn't?

He went with bad intentions to further a cause - i.e. to prevent the election from occurring because he, like everyone else, knew that if the election went ahead PTP would win handsomely.

Further - it is quite obvious that whoever chooses to wear a red shirt is pro-democracy so "assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same, which leads to the conclusion that yes, the popcorn shooter showed up with the intention to shoot at and cause bodily harm to the Red Shirts / Voters

What an utterly pathetic answer.

How so?

This so: "It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths."

Instead of facing the simple truth that the man went there to counteract the Red Shirts that marched against the PDRC you chose to believe the newly minted lie that he went there to shoot at people merely for going to a poll station to cast their votes.

The notion is not only ridiculous, it is not supported by any facts or reasonable argument, only by blind "bigotry, prejudice and fanaticism".

As with Fab4, absolute lack of intellectual honesty.

The PDRC trespassed onto government property to ensure that ballots couldn't be delivered.They then set up road blocks to stop willing voters exercise their legal democratic right. It was widely known they they were heavily armed. These actions were illegal, intimidating and violent. There would not have been any incident if the PDRC had not acted in this manner.

How about 'the simple truth' that 4 soldiers were charged with attempted murder on Kwanchai in Khon Khan? Did the red shirts shoot at them?

Why was this not called the 'Surat Thani model'? After all there was a network of armed militants trying to destabilise the sitting government. Huge caches of their weapons were found. Where is the organisational chart? Where is the investigation into their suppliers & leaders?

[firestar]

Despite all the red thug terrorist usual comments, there is only a couple pictures of two taxi drivers with sticks, respect my votes turned upside down. while dozens of pics of pdrc thugs not only armed but trained. As for the Red shirts started it that day, it wasn't what the BBC reported, nor would it have happened if the PDRC hadn't been BREAKING THE LAW by flaunting the state of emergency.

[khunken]

What an utterly pathetic answer.

How so?

This so: "It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths."

Instead of facing the simple truth that the man went there to counteract the Red Shirts that marched against the PDRC you chose to believe the newly minted lie that he went there to shoot at people merely for going to a poll station to cast their votes.

The notion is not only ridiculous, it is not supported by any facts or reasonable argument, only by blind "bigotry, prejudice and fanaticism".

As with Fab4, absolute lack of intellectual honesty.

The PDRC trespassed onto government property to ensure that ballots couldn't be delivered.They then set up road blocks to stop willing voters exercise their legal democratic right. It was widely known they they were heavily armed. These actions were illegal, intimidating and violent. There would not have been any incident if the PDRC had not acted in this manner.

How about 'the simple truth' that 4 soldiers were charged with attempted murder on Kwanchai in Khon Khan? Did the red shirts shoot at them?

Why was this not called the 'Surat Thani model'? After all there was a network of armed militants trying to destabilise the sitting government. Huge caches of their weapons were found. Where is the organisational chart? Where is the investigation into their suppliers & leaders?

Half truths with one or two lies.

Yes, the PDRC disrupted the voting. They did not set up any road blocks to do it - they went to the voting stations proximity.

It is not widely known that they were heavily armed. Total lie because there is no evidence that they were armed at all. The Popcorn guy was driven to Laksi because the Ko Tee armed militia was threatening the protestors and started the shooting.

The 4 soldiers arrested for the Kwanchai attempt (Udon Thani not Khon Khen) had nothing to do with the protestors and were more likely paid by a (business or mafia) rival to Kwanchai. But don't let conspiracy stop your speculation.

The organisation chart you mention has been all over the media - both Thai & English. The investigation is on-going and one or two of their leaders are currently overseas.

Yes, the PDRC did destabilise the criminals in power. Remember the amnesty bill? That's why.

[sweatalot]

@ Sweatalot Urmm...several video images from different angles showing him firing an assault weapon into a shopping Centre plus dozens of eye witnesses and members of the international press? Would that be proof enough to charge him

Is it 100 % sure that it is him on the picture - if so how can he denie?

[AleG]

This so: "It never ceases to amaze me how peoples bigotry, prejudices and fanaticism blinds them to even the most OBVIOUS and simple truths."

Instead of facing the simple truth that the man went there to counteract the Red Shirts that marched against the PDRC you chose to believe the newly minted lie that he went there to shoot at people merely for going to a poll station to cast their votes.

The notion is not only ridiculous, it is not supported by any facts or reasonable argument, only by blind "bigotry, prejudice and fanaticism".

As with Fab4, absolute lack of intellectual honesty.

The PDRC trespassed onto government property to ensure that ballots couldn't be delivered.They then set up road blocks to stop willing voters exercise their legal democratic right. It was widely known they they were heavily armed. These actions were illegal, intimidating and violent. There would not have been any incident if the PDRC had not acted in this manner.

How about 'the simple truth' that 4 soldiers were charged with attempted murder on Kwanchai in Khon Khan? Did the red shirts shoot at them?

Why was this not called the 'Surat Thani model'? After all there was a network of armed militants trying to destabilise the sitting government. Huge caches of their weapons were found. Where is the organisational chart? Where is the investigation into their suppliers & leaders?

There would not have been any incident if the PDRC had not acted in this manner.

So it is OK to have an armed militia taking pot shots at anti-government protesters with impunity, and woe them if they have the temerity of indulging in self defense, right?

I'm sure the children killed by the Red Shirt militants had it coming too...

Ignoring the irrelevant case of Kwanchai, and about your hypothetical "Surat Thani Model", first of, there's absolutely no evidence whatsoever that the PDRC, unlike the Red Shirts, were planning to use widespread terrorism as a means of achieving their goals, zero, none, zip. Being armed for self defense is not the same as being a terrorist, capisce? Good.

Second, IF there is any credible evidence of the PDRC having planned to carry a campaign of terrorism I'll tell you what I won't do, I won't come up with endless self serving spin to justify their actions.

[citizen33]

Protest? In my country if there were a systematic effort to subvert an election and overthrow the democratic system of government we would call it something else.

[Emptyset]

Contradicting yourself I see:

"assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same

Not all the voters were Red, but all the Reds were voters.

You are using totally false logic as well. Yes, the protestors were trying to prevent voting (by who, nobody knows except, apparently you) and the red shirt armed wing (Ko Tee and his murderous gang) were there, protected by the police, shooting at protestors. The Popcorn gunman went there to confront the armed reds and protect the protestors.

Very similar to the PDRC having to employ guards, some armed, in an effort to protect the main body of protestors from the killers. Why? Because the CAPO led police failed in every department: viz protecting unarmed people from killers and making no effort to arrest the perpetrators.

Yes, the protestors were wrong to try and disrupt voting but that is a job for the police, not an armed militia. BTW that militia killed a PDRC leader afterwards on Bangna Trad road.

The protesters were trying to prevent the distribution of ballot boxes, not prevent voting. A red shirt group went there to confront the PDRC and ensure the boxes could be taken out of the district office. The PDRC at Lak Si feared they might be outnumbered so called for reinforcements amongst which was the popcorn gunman and other armed militants. However, the red shirt group didn't confront the initial PDRC group, they were kept some distance down the road by police who managed to succesfully defuse the situation. The red shirts were actually heading back to the nearby temple (which is where Koh Tee was, incidentally) via the shopping center when the PDRC reinforcements showed up. I looked at all the evidence at the time; there were multiple sources of video evidence and many journalists at the scene, not just Nick Nostitz. And the consensus amongst the journalists who witnessed events is that the PDRC shot at the red shirt group first. There was no clash until the popgun gunmen and crew showed up and started firing towards the red shirts at the mall. That's when one or two red shirts and police with guns returned fire.

I believe the only person injured on the PDRC side was the photographer James Nachtwey who was injured by a ricochet from a bullet fired by someone on the red shirt side. The other injuries were all on the red shirt side (though I think some were cilivians who had nothing to do with it), with one guy ending up paralysed I believe. I can't go back through all the sources I looked at, some of it probably ended up on threads here. A lot was based on tweets by journalists at the scene and obviously it'll be difficult to find all of that stuff now since it was ages ago and I'm sure it still wouldn't resolve the argument here anyway. But everything I've seen suggests the PDRC started this fight and were much more heavily armed than the red shirts. This first hand account by a CNN journalist is one thing I recall reading at the time: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thai-protests-gunfight-kocha/

I agree that there is/was a red shirt armed wing but there's nothing to indicate they were at Lak Si that day. Perhaps the PDRC feared they were hence sending the gunmen and maybe once they got there they decided they weren't going to go home without a fight (plus part of it might have been in revenge for the Suthin killing you mention, which was actually the week before, not after). I also haven't seen any evidence that Koh Tee has much directly to do with the red shirt armed wing. Obviously he's said he supports violence, which gives the impression he is involved with it, but people more familiar with the situation than me seem to think he's basically just a lot of bluster and not much substance. He actually left Thailand a few days after this, fearing the army had put a hit out on him. His radio station was hit with grenades about a week after iirc but by that time he was already in Cambodia. Certainly there's no evidence linking him to the killing of Suthin. The evidence regards the leadership/funding of the armed group (which is somewhat scant) seems to point to people in Pattaya rather than Koh Tee.

Of course there may have been different armed groups involved. It's not necessarily the case that those responsible for Suthin were also responsible for the grenade attacks. Koh Tee was personally involved in a couple of (relatively minor) clashes - he'd actually left the scene by the time the Lak Si clash took place - but as far as I can remember, his group seemed to actually come off worse each time. No doubt there were people in his group who had armed themselves but they are not the same as the militants (carrying out grenade attacks, killing Suthin) we're talking about. Koh Tee might be an unsavoury person who's said some stupid things, but I doubt he's the instigator of any of the seriously violent attacks that took place. As I say, people have quite naturally implicated him in attacks due to his inflammatory rhetoric but the assumption of his involvement is much more based on speculation than it is any real evidence.

[AleG]

Contradicting yourself I see:

"assembled Red Shirts" and "voters trying to vote" are one in the same

Not all the voters were Red, but all the Reds were voters.

You are using totally false logic as well. Yes, the protestors were trying to prevent voting (by who, nobody knows except, apparently you) and the red shirt armed wing (Ko Tee and his murderous gang) were there, protected by the police, shooting at protestors. The Popcorn gunman went there to confront the armed reds and protect the protestors.

Very similar to the PDRC having to employ guards, some armed, in an effort to protect the main body of protestors from the killers. Why? Because the CAPO led police failed in every department: viz protecting unarmed people from killers and making no effort to arrest the perpetrators.

Yes, the protestors were wrong to try and disrupt voting but that is a job for the police, not an armed militia. BTW that militia killed a PDRC leader afterwards on Bangna Trad road.

The protesters were trying to prevent the distribution of ballot boxes, not prevent voting. A red shirt group went there to confront the PDRC and ensure the boxes could be taken out of the district office. The PDRC at Lak Si feared they might be outnumbered so called for reinforcements amongst which was the popcorn gunman and other armed militants. However, the red shirt group didn't confront the initial PDRC group, they were kept some distance down the road by police who managed to succesfully defuse the situation. The red shirts were actually heading back to the nearby temple (which is where Koh Tee was, incidentally) via the shopping center when the PDRC reinforcements showed up. I looked at all the evidence at the time; there were multiple sources of video evidence and many journalists at the scene, not just Nick Nostitz. And the consensus amongst the journalists who witnessed events is that the PDRC shot at the red shirt group first. There was no clash until the popgun gunmen and crew showed up and started firing towards the red shirts at the mall. That's when one or two red shirts and police with guns returned fire.

I believe the only person injured on the PDRC side was the photographer James Nachtwey who was injured by a ricochet from a bullet fired by someone on the red shirt side. The other injuries were all on the red shirt side (though I think some were cilivians who had nothing to do with it), with one guy ending up paralysed I believe. I can't go back through all the sources I looked at, some of it probably ended up on threads here. A lot was based on tweets by journalists at the scene and obviously it'll be difficult to find all of that stuff now since it was ages ago and I'm sure it still wouldn't resolve the argument here anyway. But everything I've seen suggests the PDRC started this fight and were much more heavily armed than the red shirts. This first hand account by a CNN journalist is one thing I recall reading at the time: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thai-protests-gunfight-kocha/

I agree that there is/was a red shirt armed wing but there's nothing to indicate they were at Lak Si that day. Perhaps the PDRC feared they were hence sending the gunmen and maybe once they got there they decided they weren't going to go home without a fight (plus part of it might have been in revenge for the Suthin killing you mention, which was actually the week before, not after). I also haven't seen any evidence that Koh Tee has much directly to do with the red shirt armed wing. Obviously he's said he supports violence, which gives the impression he is involved with it, but people more familiar with the situation than me seem to think he's basically just a lot of bluster and not much substance. He actually left Thailand a few days after this, fearing the army had put a hit out on him. His radio station was hit with grenades about a week after iirc but by that time he was already in Cambodia. Certainly there's no evidence linking him to the killing of Suthin. The evidence regards the leadership/funding of the armed group (which is somewhat scant) seems to point to people in Pattaya rather than Koh Tee.

Of course there may have been different armed groups involved. It's not necessarily the case that those responsible for Suthin were also responsible for the grenade attacks. Koh Tee was personally involved in a couple of (relatively minor) clashes - he'd actually left the scene by the time the Lak Si clash took place - but as far as I can remember, his group seemed to actually come off worse each time. No doubt there were people in his group who had armed themselves but they are not the same as the militants (carrying out grenade attacks, killing Suthin) we're talking about. Koh Tee might be an unsavoury person who's said some stupid things, but I doubt he's the instigator of any of the seriously violent attacks that took place. As I say, people have quite naturally implicated him in attacks due to his inflammatory rhetoric but the assumption of his involvement is much more based on speculation than it is any real evidence.

The Red Shirts had already resorted to violence before the PC man showed up, they went there to have a confrontation and got more than they bargained for in return.

Poor misunderstood Ko Tee, he didn't really mean it when he claimed to have assembled and trained an armed militia. That men who joined his Red Shirt group were responsible for acts of terrorism, is probably just a coincidence.

Also this ”Don’t stay close to Lung Kamnan today. There’s a report that a team led by Ko Tee has khanom (sweets) from the border waiting on their way back on the expressway.” (you may search for that online), one dead, four injured, probably he didn't have anything to do with it because he didn't really mean it when he said "I want there to be lots of violence to put an end to all this,I'm bored by speeches. It's time to clean the country, to get rid of the elite, all of them." he is just expressing his desire for a peaceful resolution to political differences through reason and dialog.

[Emptyset]

The protesters were trying to prevent the distribution of ballot boxes, not prevent voting. A red shirt group went there to confront the PDRC and ensure the boxes could be taken out of the district office. The PDRC at Lak Si feared they might be outnumbered so called for reinforcements amongst which was the popcorn gunman and other armed militants. However, the red shirt group didn't confront the initial PDRC group, they were kept some distance down the road by police who managed to succesfully defuse the situation. The red shirts were actually heading back to the nearby temple (which is where Koh Tee was, incidentally) via the shopping center when the PDRC reinforcements showed up. I looked at all the evidence at the time; there were multiple sources of video evidence and many journalists at the scene, not just Nick Nostitz. And the consensus amongst the journalists who witnessed events is that the PDRC shot at the red shirt group first. There was no clash until the popgun gunmen and crew showed up and started firing towards the red shirts at the mall. That's when one or two red shirts and police with guns returned fire.

I believe the only person injured on the PDRC side was the photographer James Nachtwey who was injured by a ricochet from a bullet fired by someone on the red shirt side. The other injuries were all on the red shirt side (though I think some were cilivians who had nothing to do with it), with one guy ending up paralysed I believe. I can't go back through all the sources I looked at, some of it probably ended up on threads here. A lot was based on tweets by journalists at the scene and obviously it'll be difficult to find all of that stuff now since it was ages ago and I'm sure it still wouldn't resolve the argument here anyway. But everything I've seen suggests the PDRC started this fight and were much more heavily armed than the red shirts. This first hand account by a CNN journalist is one thing I recall reading at the time: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/03/world/asia/thai-protests-gunfight-kocha/

I agree that there is/was a red shirt armed wing but there's nothing to indicate they were at Lak Si that day. Perhaps the PDRC feared they were hence sending the gunmen and maybe once they got there they decided they weren't going to go home without a fight (plus part of it might have been in revenge for the Suthin killing you mention, which was actually the week before, not after). I also haven't seen any evidence that Koh Tee has much directly to do with the red shirt armed wing. Obviously he's said he supports violence, which gives the impression he is involved with it, but people more familiar with the situation than me seem to think he's basically just a lot of bluster and not much substance. He actually left Thailand a few days after this, fearing the army had put a hit out on him. His radio station was hit with grenades about a week after iirc but by that time he was already in Cambodia. Certainly there's no evidence linking him to the killing of Suthin. The evidence regards the leadership/funding of the armed group (which is somewhat scant) seems to point to people in Pattaya rather than Koh Tee.

Of course there may have been different armed groups involved. It's not necessarily the case that those responsible for Suthin were also responsible for the grenade attacks. Koh Tee was personally involved in a couple of (relatively minor) clashes - he'd actually left the scene by the time the Lak Si clash took place - but as far as I can remember, his group seemed to actually come off worse each time. No doubt there were people in his group who had armed themselves but they are not the same as the militants (carrying out grenade attacks, killing Suthin) we're talking about. Koh Tee might be an unsavoury person who's said some stupid things, but I doubt he's the instigator of any of the seriously violent attacks that took place. As I say, people have quite naturally implicated him in attacks due to his inflammatory rhetoric but the assumption of his involvement is much more based on speculation than it is any real evidence.

The Red Shirts had already resorted to violence before the PC man showed up, they went there to have a confrontation and got more than they bargained for in return.

Poor misunderstood Ko Tee, he didn't really mean it when he claimed to have assembled and trained an armed militia. That men who joined his Red Shirt group were responsible for acts of terrorism, is probably just a coincidence.

Also this ”Don’t stay close to Lung Kamnan today. There’s a report that a team led by Ko Tee has khanom (sweets) from the border waiting on their way back on the expressway.” (you may search for that online), one dead, four injured, probably he didn't have anything to do with it because he didn't really mean it when he said "I want there to be lots of violence to put an end to all this,I'm bored by speeches. It's time to clean the country, to get rid of the elite, all of them." he is just expressing his desire for a peaceful resolution to political differences through reason and dialog.

Well, some red shirts had attacked a car prior to the clash with the PDRC gunmen, but other than the fact that the car was driven by a military officer, I still have no idea why they attacked it. The video of it doesn't show what provoked the attack. Anyway, there was no clash with the PDRC before the popcorn guy (& friends) arrived. Not sure why this popcorn guy is being singled out btw, there were several armed militants present, as shown clearly in photographs etc. Perhaps because he's the only one caught on video shooting towards the mall, but common sense suggests the other armed men would have been firing too.

As for Koh Tee, your sarcasm is misplaced. I wasn't trying to create a sympathetic picture of the guy, I just doubted - talk aside - how directly involved with violent attacks he actually was. I hadn't actually seen the report you linked before. I still doubt that he was the prime instigator of the violence directed towards the PDRC & its affiliates, but at the same time it's not that surprising that a member of his group was allegedly involved. I think it's likely there were more than one group of militants involved at different times. But perhaps I'm wrong, maybe he had a much bigger role in things than I thought.

Edited August 27, 2014 by Emptyset